https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308893 The appellate court held that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction based on the interpretation of arbitration clauses in the General Purchase Conditions (GPC), despite the supplier being located in Thane, Maharashtra. The court emphasized that the blank spaces in the GPC indicated an intention to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at New Delhi. The court clarified that while the MSME Act determines the venue of arbitration, the agreed seat of arbitration prevails. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings before the Single Judge. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:22:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308893 The appellate court held that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction based on the interpretation of arbitration clauses in the General Purchase Conditions (GPC), despite the supplier being located in Thane, Maharashtra. The court emphasized that the blank spaces in the GPC indicated an intention to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at New Delhi. The court clarified that while the MSME Act determines the venue of arbitration, the agreed seat of arbitration prevails. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings before the Single Judge. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308893